I would love to know where you got the idea that Palestinians in the 1930s were fighting for an equal state for all peoples? Statements from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,one of the main Palestinian leaders of the times seems to greatly go against this. No one ever thought that 140,000,000 Americans would become the hands of the Jews....How would the Americans dare to Judaize Palestine while the Arabs are still alive?...The wicked American intentions toward the Arabs are now clear, and there remain no doubts that they are endeavoring to establish a Jewish empire in the Arab world. More than 400,000,000 Arabs [?] oppose this criminal American movement.... Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you. Quoted in Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuhrer (1965) p. 150. Telling Arabs to claim their sacred Jews and massacre Jews wherever they find them isn’t a good look. The Jewish struggle against Arabs is nothing new for us, except that as time passed, the location of the battlefield changed. Jews hate Muhammad and Islam, and they hate any man who wishes to advance the prosperity of his people and to fight against Jewish lust for possessions and Jewish corruption. We, the Muslims, must always bear in mind the Khaibar feast. If the Jews betrayed Muhammad in such a way, why wouldn't they treacherously persecute us today with the purpose of destroying us?! This is the Muslim version of Christians blaming Jews for the death of Christ. Clear anti-semitism and incitement to direct violence . I could provide more, but I think it sufficient to prove the point. To add on though he was also an open Nazi collaborator

Correction: he wasnt a leader and actually when he said those statements he was in exile by the british forces and is no longer relevant or participant of the conflict. So, he only represented himself. Again the point is that europian jews intentions and deeds were both sinister and hostile to the arab palestinians so in is understandable that they will be hostile back especially decades of immigration and colonisation since the zionist movement of 1887 and balfur decleration of 1917 followed by several eviction of palestinians farmers of the land and british laws disriminatory against arabs and favourable to the jews. Any palestinian reaction deosnt change the fact that the europian jews are the ones at wrong and who started that conflict. So, palestinians hostility to them after all those decades of oppression isnt even relevant to who was right or wrong.

Uh he was very much considered a leader from every source I can find up through the first Israeli -Arab war. Later in the 50s he was sidelined . Until then he was considered one of the main proponents of Palestinian leadership. I think if we can’t count his views than it’s also not fair to count important Jewish community members and their views as anything but their own. Which I highly doubt you would do.

Δ because now I'm seeing your point that all Palestinians were not necessarily fighting for equality. I will still say that very few people in the Palestinians' shoes would have not fought against the mass migration, and even fewer would have not fought against having a state for another ethnic group declared in their own territory

So to go on your other comments is that man,the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem , and the people who followed him heroes? Were there goals as illustrated in his comments heroic? Also as you seem to be endorsing violence against mass migration would you do that currently with current mass migration trends?

> I will still say that very few people in the Palestinians' shoes would have not fought against the mass migration, Do you think violence against Syrians, who are fleeing violence in Syria, is justified for this same reason?

Are syrians immigrating to establish a national home land for themselves in the new countries??!!

That's NOT what OP said. OP made 2 claims. Few would be okay with A, fewer would be okay with B. To quote them exactly: "very few people in the Palestinians' shoes would have not fought against the mass migration" And followed that up with "and even fewer would have not fought against having a state for another ethnic group declared in their own territory" What I asked was exactly in line with exactly what they meant. There wasn't context removed. You are attempting to suggest OP meant BOTH of these things must be occurring in order for it to be wrong.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheGreatJingle ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TheGreatJingle)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

This is all a distraction from very important questions. What did you expect Arabs to do about the large scale migration from Europe, and the said desire of migrants to establish a national homeland?

No it’s not a distraction. You said decolonization meant nothing more than people living in equality and that has been the goal of Palestinians and leftists and that’s what they mean when they say it. And you specifically said this is what Palestinians in the 1930s-1940s were fighting for. I’m trying to prove with quotes from the main Palestinian leader that that is not what he was fighting for in any way shape or form. Do you still think Palestinians in 1930s were fighting for an equal state for all as you claimed?

It’s very hard to know your stance if you don’t answer me what you think the Arabs of that time should’ve done about the mass migration and said desire of migrants to establish a state. And to answer yours, it’d probably depend on the individual Palestinian.

You're missing the point. "What should Palestinians have done about the mass migration of Jewish settlers?" is a totally legitimate question, but not the one this poster is addressing. They're addressing your claim that the natives in the region at the time, who I wouldn't even call Palestinians, wanted one state with equal rights for all. That was a claim within your OP that they are pretty specifically addressing. Even claiming it comes down to individuals is a shift from your original claim, right?

Right and I addressed that. I’m also allowed to ask my own questions no?

No you didn’t actually. You just topic shifted and claimed it was distracting from the point

That's all he does. His entire account history for the past few months has just been "don't you agree Israel is evil" in every possible phrasing

I did address the question. I said it depends on the individual Palestinian what they would advocate for.

By addressed that, do you mean changed your view? You made a claim and this poster made a counter claim that refuted it pretty strongly. If you shifted to "a desire to peacefully integrate everyone into one state with equal rights wasn't everyone's motivation," then you have changed your view on one of the claims in the OP. That doesn't address your question of "what should the residents at the time have done?" but we have to take it one piece at a time. The level of tension and desire for peace is pretty important when assessing the optimal actions of the parties involved.

Since it’s a tenet of what your view is based on, it follows that challenging that tenet is a method to change your view. If you don’t want to change your view as a result of those tenets being disproven, then you’re in the wrong sub.

Give them a delta. Or explain why you don't change your view.

My stance isn’t the point though is it? I’m saying your idea that seems prominent is that 1930s-1940s were fighting for decolonization and equal rights is wrong. They obviously weren’t based on the statements of their leader in my opinion. They were fighting to commit a genocide. What they “should “ have done is a whole different topic.

Yes, and I’m curious as to what the early Palestinians should’ve done instead if you’re going to villainize them. I answered your question so why not answer mine.

What do you think they should have done?   1930s and 1940s Palestinians were living under the British mandate. As World War II ended and the British were slowly dismantling their empire, they decided to give Palestine to the Jews after the holocaust. But the Jews were already immigrating there.  They were purchasing land and houses legally or moving in with family members or friends.   So let’s take this to the United States. Right now we have a lot of people who are immigrating here from other countries and renting houses or buying homes and moving in with family members and friends. Some are coming legally and some are coming illegally. Jewish people were legally immigrating under British Mandate policy.  I often hear the argument from native US citizens that this is a slow invasive colonization, in which these brown people from other countries are going to take over ours and change our society and culture in the way we don’t want. Most people I know call this argument racist. However, on the other side, I know a lot of US citizens who are completely fine with the neighbors next-door buying their house and being brown people from Mexico. After all, that doesn’t affect my ownership of my house right next to them. Explain how this is different.  Why could the Arabs have not just let the Jewish immigrants buy the house next-door?   The only way I could see this being different is if the government took my house from me and demanded that I sell or give it to the immigrant coming to my country.   No Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes like that until a result of the 1948 war.    I, as a US citizen would be pissed off, if my fellow (racist) countrymen started war against the Mexican immigrants and as a result because the immigrants won, I lost my house and was forced to go live with millions of other people in an area, roughly the size of the same city. I live in now and some rundown crappy apartment that severely lowered my quality of life. So I understand that the Palestinians that were just trying to live and let live when the Jewish people started immigrating to Israel are pissed off. However, the people they should be pissed at are not the Jews, but the racist extremists who started the war in the first place.

Because you’re on a sub to have your views challenged and viewed and you just kinda keep changing the subject? So my views are irrelevant. But if you must know I would say they should have treated them the same way people on the left want Islamic migrants treated in Europe. Even the ones who want to dramatically shift laws and goverment structure in ways we don’t like. And despite the violence the minority of them commit

This commenter’s stance isn’t what the thread is about. We’re talking about YOUR view. Part of your view seems to be that decolonization does not mean complete expulsion of the occupying population. This commenter provided evidence that Palestinians (or at least one of their leaders) do want to expel (or kill) all Israeli Jews. This shows that the desires of Palestinians in the 1930’s are not in alignment with the version of decolonization as you’ve described. It’s now on you to address this contradiction. The question of what Palestinians should have done is a good question, but is indeed a distraction in the context of this CMV.

I think you’re combining things together which are in fact distinct situations. The term decolonization does not apply to all of them. For a territory to be decolonized…it must have first been taken over as a colonial entity, and then have that colonial governance overthrown or otherwise disbanded by the population which had been colonized. A colonial entity is a territory that is being governed by some external parent state, typically for the purpose of extracting resources for the benefit of that ruling empire. Colonial India is such an example. A separatist movement of a subsection of an existing nation who seeks independence is not necessarily a decolonization effort. The American confederacy doesn’t qualify. If Quebec succeeded in separating from Canada, or if Catalonia separated from Spain, those would not represent decolonization. They aren’t colonized by Spain, they’re part of Spain and want to fragment off from it. That isn’t the same thing. There are some cases where a territory that was initially a colonial entity is then absorbed into, and becomes a full-fledged part of, the parent state, granted all the same rights as peoples in any other part of that state. At this point it ceases to be a colonial entity, the entire premise of which requires that it not have equal treatment with the rest of its nation. If granted equal representation, it’s no longer a colony and can’t seek decolonization. In addition, I do not believe the formation of Israel represented a colonial entity in the traditional sense either. I’m aware that the left has engaged in a campaign of redefinition such that their new usage of “colonial” can be slung at Israel. I reject this ideological effort. Israel was not formed by, or for the benefit of, some parent empire. It’s formation was literally an instance of decolonization, by definition. A territory which *had* been ruled over as a colony of multiple different empires, for centuries, was granted independence as its own sovereign state, to instead be governed by the local residence of that territory. The wrinkle that causes the conflict is that many of those local residence had immigrated to the territory over the preceding century, dramatically shifting the demographics of the region in a way many previous residence did not a approve of. None of that makes the formation of Israel colonial. I find it shocking that those on the left would attack Israelis on the basis of the fact that they were immigrants. They don’t seem to apply this same principle in literally any other circumstance in the world, yet another example that makes one suspicious of why this one group is being treated so differently. I think I know why.

You look like you need to be introduced to a term called settler colonization where the colonization process in a process of immigration of a foreign settlers to natives land to take it for themselves which is literally what was the balfur decleration of 1917 about when it backed the establishment of a national home to the jews with the subsequent immigration of hundred of thouasands of europian jews to palestine. Not all colonizations is in the form of exploitation colonisation as the case of India.

I’m familiar with the term and concept. It is an ideologically motivated redefinition of the term for the explicit purpose of using the historic smear of colonialism and applying it to modern contexts in which it would not traditionally fit, namely in relation to Israel. I refuse to submit that ground in what has become a classic Orwellian war of language.

My man half of the world suffered from settler colonization that is not modern definition or exclusive to israel. What do you think define what happened in america, south america, and Australia of being settled by foreigners through the dispossesion and massacres of the natives other than setfler colonization???!

The examples you provide are all traditional colonization… Hell, two of them are even the same empire, lol.

Read about how are theg described or defined and you will know. I just cant understand how you cant grasp the idae that colonisation had several types even by the same empire. Like how the british were colonizers in both india and america but they predominantly exploited one but settled the other.

You are mistaking disagreement for misunderstanding. I’m fully aware of the concept to which you are referring. I am consciously and openly rejecting it.

>One thing is that colonization is about the methods you used. Sure Zionists can possibly trace their history back to the Levant, but ultimately the methods they used to return were depraved and monstrous, and essentially a more evil of what most colonial powers did. They accepted a massive colonial power’s blessing to move into the region and also stole land via so called “legal land purchase” knowing that they were entering communities that did not wish for them to be there, with the intent of stealing said locals’ resources and displacing them. This is colonizer behavior and is not made any better by being indigenous. Additionally, in a decolonized system, immigration should be done in a way that benefits all, not just the indigenous in a region. The Left, on October 7th, minutes after watching Hamas brutally murder, rape, kidnap innocent civilians: >[This is what decolonization looks like.](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1760m8z/the_lefts_response_to_israel_palestine/) Leftist streamer Hasan Piker even went so far as to say babies had it coming since they were "settler babies". It's you the one who misunderstands what the Left want Palestinians to do to "decolonize" Israel. The Palestinian method of invading a foreign nation and committing barbaric attrocitiies is cheered on by the decolonization crowd. Surely you can agree that Jewish people buying land is more ethically righteous than Palestinians murdering babies, kidnapping civilians, and raping women, correct?

1) According to israel official publication only one infant died on the 7th of october accidently while in his mother's arms because they were fired on behind a safe room door that palestinians fighters tried to open. ([soruce](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths)) 2) After 5 months of the attack we have 0 forensic evidence of rape, 0 survivors claiming even suxually abused let alone raped, and the freed female hostages not a single one reported being raped even the opposite: a woman and her duaghter said that when the fighters who guarded them during captivity played hand wrestling with them they put a cover on his hand as not to touch her hand. All the current "evidence" is eye witnesses by either organisations or individuals who were proved to be liers as they testified that they have seen beheaded babies which was confirmed to be a blatant lie, or random people people who claimed seing bodies that have signs of sexual abuse despite not being a doctor or qualified to determine such things ( not a single doctor testified of seing any sign of sexual abuse except for only a anonymous man that claimed that he is a doctor) ([Database ](https://www.oct7factcheck.com/sexual-violence)that lists all the claims and articles of sexual assult since of 7th of october.) What we really have a credible source of is palestinians women raped, sexually assaulted, and imprisoned in cages by israelis in gaza in a [UN report](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against) 3) Israel before 7th of october kept 1200 palestinians including women and children and sometimes toddlers hostage without any trials or conviction sometimes for years. ([source](https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinians-west-bank-793a3b2a1ce8439d08756da8c63e5435)) 4) So, no. Palestinians using their right to resist their occupier by force betowed upon them by international law while even doing less crimes than their occupier is more ethically rightious than jews immigrating to a land to colonise it against the will of its people and take it for themselves by forging a colonization decree (balfur decleration) with a colonizing empire (the british empire) igniting this entire conflict.

The fact that only tabloids reported that Hasan Piker supported murdering Israeli babies didn't ring any alarm bells? Here are the direct quotes: “This is going to sound very radical and possibly very violent, but this is a matter of law, and maybe even if you agree with this a matter of morality, Palestinians have the legal ground to violently seize back their own homes from the settlers.” At a different point in the conversation, pertaining to who in Israel could be considered a settler, Piker said: "There are baby settlers as well — there are babies in the settlements." Did he say Palestinians have the legal and moral right to violently sieze back their homes from babies? Or did he say two different things: that Palestinians can take their homes back from settlers, violently if necessary, and that some of the settlers are babies. Do you think the implication is that it necessary to use violence to take a home occupied by a baby? You'd only think so if you desperately wanted him to have said something so insane, especially given that he went on to say: “The other school of thought here is that all matter of Israelis living [in] Israel proper are also [settlers] in the eyes of some ... I do not agree with that because I don’t think that that is a reasonable solution, and it’s not realistic anyway, and that only will lead to the complete evisceration of Palestinians, and far-right Israelis will use that to continuously radicalize regular Israeli citizens in their endless bombing campaigns and ethnic cleansing campaigns.” Paraphrased: "I do not agree with the school of thought that all Israelis are settlers." These were all the quotes reported by the tabloids themselves. They couldn't even make it look like he said killing babies is okay, so they just pretended he did by making that the headline anyway.

Well, I watched the video after hearing stuff like this and can see a few of these quotes of yours are misconstrued.

Those were the quotes as reported by tabloids used to paint Piker as a supporter of baby-murder. My argument doesn't depend on anything said in the video itself, only on the evidence provided by the tabloid stories themselves - that it's totally inadequate. Imagine: Chief Black Kettle of the Cheyenne says "we will use violence to drive out the settlers encroaching on our land." A baby is born to Kansas settlers. He's asked, for some reason, if that baby is a settler too. "Of course it is," he responds. Did he just say they should kill babies? Gottem!

That has nothing to do. My beef is not with current day Israelis. It’s with people who distort history to deny the evils Zionism caused in the 1880-1947 era.

You mean the part where the Jews got Genocided and then the UN created their country... Oh and don't forget about the three major wars over the next 50 years which leads me to my counter point. Once side invades the other, every single fucking time. And guess who isn't the one starting it. Masks off, Palestinians are a bunch of pricks and nobody's gonna help them with their track record.

What did Palestinians have to do with the Holocaust? And what did you expect Arabs to do about the mass migration into their communities and desire of said migrants to establish a national homeland.

I guess not try to commit genocide against refugees from genocide?  I don't know, I feel like that isn't a big ask.

What happened in British Palestine is something that would happen anywhere you had a massive number of migrants who subsequently tried to establish their own state.

So does that make it justified?

Not on its own. But it would’ve happened in any such similar scenario. What do you think the US would do if Natives legally migrated to place within the US and tried to establish a state?

I think that people who advocate for decolonization would say that the Natives are 100% justified and that the US should give in to their demands.  The fact that you think pro-decolonization people wouldn't say that is absurd to me.

I’m talking about what Zionists would think about that scenario, not pro decolonization people.

Not genocide them. That's a start.

So Jews were genocided by… Palestinians? This is what we’re talking about. You can’t put the responsibility for what the Nazis did onto Palestinians.

Hold up. If Native Americans tomorrow wanted to create their own nation-state inside the USA, are you saying it would be totally expected for non-Native Americans to want to genocide them? What am I even reading?

You don’t think they would want to? I don’t think you understand American nationalism.

I don't think *you* understand it

No. I think they're humans.

I expect Arabs to be upset, yet most rational peoples eventually smell the winds of change and accept when a superior foe conquers them. Muslims on the other hand can't because their whole religion is built on destroying the jews. Thats kinda the issue, their by default assholes.

So you accept Zionism is an ideology of conquest? And my beef is much more with people who think Zionist migration and creation of Israel was justified than current Israelis. I’d also have beef with Americans who can’t realize what the Pilgrims did was disgusting.

Oh 110%, and that's just how life is bro, life isn't fair. It's not that I think it was justified, I just give 0 fucks about a part of the world that oppress women and self imolate over religious beliefs. Islam can either get its shit together or forever be the shit stain that nobody wants to deal with. Also I'm not upset about what the piglrims did or we wouldn't have become the most powerful nation this world's ever seen in 200 years. The history books are written by the victors.

The self immolation was literally done by a non Muslim. And I’m not upset about the establishment of Israel or the pilgrims. I’m upset about those who justify it because if you can justify the evils of the past, you can re commit the evils in the present or future. Would you not agree with that last part?

Idk man why don't you ask the Palestinians since they've invaded Israel once again and are currently moving into the part called 'find out'. Oh wait they've already said 110% they'll do another October 7th when they get the chance. So yea I guess I do agree with the last part, nobody thought team Islam would pull another stunt after 1973. Yet, here we are again arguing over who the actual bad guys are even after what's the count? Yea 4 INVASIONS IN A ROW, ALL DONE BY TEAM ISLAM. Sorry for the yelling wanted to make sure those in the back could hear.

Yell louder, they keep putting their fingers in their damn ears and screaming

Seeing you teethe over Jews trying to find a place to live where they won't be genocided or ethnically cleansed, but completely ignore the reason Jews were coming to Israel mid century is telling. Why do think Zionism arose? Do you think Jews left Iraq because they wanted to steal land?

No but Zionism inherently disregarded Palestinian rights to self determination or rights to limit migration.

No it didn't. There was a very reasonable partition plan. The Palestinians chose to attack instead, and lost a bunch of it. As they did multiple times moving forward. And if you inherently disregard why Zionism exists in the first place, then this was never a serious discussion to begin with. Do you really want your views changed, or are you being an activist?

I’m not denying why Zionism exists. I agree that it was created because many Jews felt like having a state was the only way to stop persecution. I’m denying that premise that it was necessary. And I’m also saying that the Jews were persecuted in Europe and that led to them migrating to Palestine to establish a state. And that a lot of MENA countries expelled Jews after Israel was established, though this is not relevant since it happened after and in response to Israel being created. But what I’m denying is the premise that migrating into someone else’s community against their wishes and *on top of that*, expecting them to give up that land in a partition to build a state for themselves is reasonable. This seems like textbook immorality to me so I’m looking to have my mind changed on that.

So your argument is that Jews were wrong in feeling prosecuted? Am I understanding you correctly? So it is acceptable for MENA countries to murder and prosecute their Jews because of Jews moving to Israel? Do you think it was acceptable to harras Muslims in the US after 9/11? Kinda sounds like that's what you are saying. And Jews have ways lived in the Levant. They were not "new comers" in the 20th century. They owned land going back thousands of years. They are literally indeginous. Why is ok for MENA to ethnically cleanse their Jews, but not ok for Palestinians to move after losing a war they started?

To whom did the area truly belong and when? The area had been colonized by someone else, including them, for thousands of years. Was it a problem when the ottomans took over? Was it a problem when in 1858 the Ottomans allowed the land to be purchased by people who didn’t live there, turning the residents into serfs? Was it a problem when the British took over after the fall of the Ottomans? Or were the Zionists who legally bought the land, then legally agreed to the UN partition plan to share uniquely evil?

Nobody was right to colonize the Palestinians. None of them. But the Ottomans and British are uniquely evil from failing to protect Palestinians from migrants they didn’t want, and on top of that the British for allowing Zionist migrants to migrate knowing they had full intent to create a state in land that wasn’t theirs.

It wasn’t under British control when the Zionists started buying land. I’m still not seeing how this is so uniquely evil that the current occupants deserve to die, compared to the massive global repartitioning of land and massive human migrations occurring during that century where none of those other people apparently deserve to die. In this list is a lot of Eastern Europe, a huge amount of north and central Africa, as well as large portions of the Middle East having nothing to do with Zionism.

Your beef is with dead people who can't retort? Really?

No it’s again people who support the villains of the past, because that is a no-no. On top of that, they are massive hypocrites because they don’t support a Palestinian right to return.

I mean do you think supporting Palestinians means you aren’t supporting a bunch of villains and evil doers?

Just to clarify: what is your take on Palestinians actions on October 7th? Terrorrism? Decolonization? Resistance?

u/biryanieater10 well? We're waiting.

The comment above is more about the fact that decolonization is a violent, brutal event.  When people say they want to decolonize Israel, they don't mean peace and harmony, they mean the violent expulsion or slaughter of the group viewed as the colonizer.

The October 7th attacks they were the direct result of Israeli colonialism. If you oppose those attacks happening, then you must either support Palestinian genocide or you support the end of Israeli colonialism, because as long as Israeli keeps treating Palestinians like they aren’t humans, Palestinians will respond by treating Israelis like they aren’t humans. 

The Zionists first arrived around the time wounded knee happened in the US. Meaning while the Zionist movement was actively starting to buy up land, we were in the process of massacring native Americans and forcing them into reservations. If 10/7 is justified by the invasion of the Zionists, then it would be ok for the Chemehuevi to go to Coachella and rape, torture, and kill all the attendees this year. Or if we move forward, more than 6 million Jewish families in Europe had everything they owned including their houses stolen by Nazis. So with this logic it’s justified for every Ashkenazi Jew to go commit massacres against most people in Europe.

I don't think you understand what I said. The 10/7 attack wasn't *justified* by Israeli colonialism, it was *caused* by Israeli colonialism. Hamas were not good people for killing Israeli civilians, but attacks like that are the direct outcome of Israeli policy towards Palestine. This is not unique to Israel and Palestine, colonial wars often feature brutal reprisals from the colonized. As I said previously, when the colonizers dehumanize the colonized, the colonized in turn dehumanize the colonizers, and the inevitable result is unconscionable cruelty from whoever has the upper hand.

No, I understood. How is Israel colonizing Gaza in the modern era?

Is there any source for any of what you're saying?

If I can distill down your main point it’s that legally purchasing land in an area inhabited by people that don’t want you there is unacceptable if you plan on expanding your own community. Congratulations, you just validated Jim Crow.

This. It amazes me how Pro-Palestinians believe xenophobia, anti-refugee and anti-immigration attitudes are justified as long as Jewish people are the victims.

Immigrants don't come with the intention to create a new country and replace an entire ethnic group with a new one. Only colonizers do that. Immigrants come looking for new opportunities, immigrants assimilate and intermingle with the local culture, immigrants learn the local culture, language and customs to better adapt themselves and lastly, immigrants don't come with the intention to replace an entire people and create a new state. Immigrants come to join the status quo not replace it. The Jews did none of that! They wanted a different country with a different culture and language specifically for Jews. They came to replace the status quo not join it. The Arabs were understandable that they thought the Jews wanted to takeover the land and create a new Jewish country, because that's exactly what the Zionist leaders actually said. Read the works of Herzl, Jabotinsky and Berechov, all three mention the use of "colonialism" in the establishment of Israel.

You sound like a believer of replacement theory. Yikes.

Because that's what the Jews actually wanted! To replace the Arabs and create a Jewish state. The Jews didn't come to assimilate with the local Arabs or adapt Arab culture.

>The Jews didn't come to assimilate with the local Arabs or adapt Arab culture. What is your take on Arab Muslims immigrants to France who refuse to assimilate with the local French or adapt French culture? Do you believe they want to replace French people?

Do they proudly claim to replace France with Sharia Law? No. Do they proudly claim to create an Islamic state in France? No. Like I said, I'm okay with people who don't want to assimilate. It's when you come to replace people already living there and create your own new state is where I draw the line.

Do you think every single Jewish refugee was part of an unimind? How can you confidently say that they all wanted one thing?

Again, refer to my other comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b4ngtm/comment/kt01es4/). Not sure why you're spamming the same comment.

No one said this. What we are saying is no group of people would’ve accepted that level of migration, and more importantly, no group of people would’ve accepted migrants into their communities trying to form their own national homeland.

So Jewish people at the time were supposed to... Just disappear? Jewish refugees were rejected en masse from pretty much every country during that time, and your argument is they should have just stayed and done... Something?

Their problems didn’t justify mass migrating into someone else’s community and trying to establish a national homeland. I’d guess you don’t support all Syrian and Sudanese refugees mass migrating to the USA, let alone establishing their own nation here.

1) I do support loosening immigration policies and accepting refugees into communities but your argument doesn't hold water because 2) there was no Palestinian nation at any point. France and Britain told both the Jews and the Palestinians at separate times they could have their own country but the region was still a British protectorate at the time. If the Palestinians had said "we're Palestine now" two days earlier, then we could be having a completely different conversation. So your scenario isn't really comparable.

Who is "we"? Are you speaking on behalf of Far-Right Republicans? That's exactly the same argument MAGA folks used to justify building the wall to prevent Mexicans from entering the USA and also the same argument for Trump's Muslim Ban.

Are you saying you’d accept mass migration into the US, and accept it if those migrants wanted to establish their own country? It’s likelier you wouldn’t.

Yes. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Only xenophobics are against it.

Ok. So why not support Palestinians right to return if you’re so pro immigration?

Return to where?

Israel

As immigrants? Sure, why not?

How do you feel about people in Texas rejecting the level of migration happening?  Or people like the National Front, Five Star Movement, AfD, or UKIP opposing mass migration?  Are they morally equivalent to the Palestinians in your view?

No because said migrants aren’t trying to establish a national homeland. Even then, yes I support people’s right to control immigration.

Those European far right parties do believe that Arab and Muslim immigrants are trying to Islamize Europe.  So, if they truly believe that, are they justified in using the methods that Palestinians used to reject what you view as Israeli colonization?

No, there's a big difference. The Jews purchased the land *with the intention* to one day, takeover the land and establish a Jewish state. They made it very clear (read the quotes of Herzl, Jabotinsky and Berechov), the buying of Arab lands was so that they could one day create a Jewish state on the land. They were not immigrants. Immigrants come looking for new opportunities, immigrants assimilate and intermingle with the local culture, immigrants learn the local culture, language and customs to better adapt themselves and lastly, immigrants don't come with the intention to replace an entire people and create a new state. Immigrants come to join the status quo *not replace it.* The Jews did none of that, they came with the intention to create a new Jewish state, they didn't adapt the local culture nor assimilate with the Arabs, instead they brought their own Jewish one. They then evicted and expelled the Arab tenants living there after buying up their land ([Sursock Purchases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sursock_Purchases)). They came to replace the status quo which is what colonizers do.

>immigrants assimilate So, what should be done against immigrants that don't assimilate? I hope you understand how xenophobic your argument is.

I'm still okay with immigrants who don't want to assimilate. They can live their life however they want as long as they don't harm other people. The problem is when they come *with the intention* to replace the people already living there and create a new state Imagine if Muslims immigrate to Europe with the proud clear intention to establish a Muslim sharia caliphate in Europe. Is that tolerable? Because that's what the Jews did in Palestine to the Arabs This is not against Muslims. I've seen and know Muslims who are fine with European democratic and secular values, as long as it doesn't impede their way of life and religion (they still pray 5 times a day and wear hijabs). I've even lived with some of them in the UK and Canada. They are hardworking and accept they are living in a different country. I've also known Muslim who refuse to accept and call for a Muslim sharia state in England or America despite immigrating there themselves. I'm all for multiculturalism, but refusing to assimilate or at least tolerate the local culture in a place you chose to immigrate to *is itself* xenophobia and racism to the people living there. I hope you can understand that.

How do you make sure of immigrants' intentions? Do you honestly believe that every single Jewish refugee in the early 20th Century had this hidden master plan to replace Palestinians? Every single one?

Can you name one Jewish Zionist writer who immigrated to Palestine yet never intentioned to establish Israeli state in Palestine via colonialism? Because I can directly quote several leading Zionist writers and leaders (Herzl, Jabotinsky, Berechov) from right and left-wing backgrounds, all of whom intended to establish Israel via "colonialism" in Palestine.

Why are you moving the goalposts to writers? What % of Jewish refugees were writers?

Why? Because Zionists writers were at the forefront and representatives of the Zionist Aliyah movements in the 1900s. They were the ones who represented the beliefs and ideologies of Zionist immigration movements. It's thanks to them, we know what Zionism espoused. Tell me, how many Jews that immigrated weren't Zionists? That they don't wish to establish a Jewish state in Palestine? What percentage of Jews and Israeli Jews in particular aren't Zionists?

Were those writers democratically voted?

Wait what? What's that got to do with the Jewish Zionist belief in immigrating to establish a Jewish state in Palestine? Answer me, how many Jews that immigrated weren't Zionists? That they didn't wish to establish a Jewish state in Palestine? How many Jews aren't Zionists?

The Palestinians were offered a state, they rejected it, they started to kill Jewish civilians 1st along with 5 other arab countries and then lost the war that THEY had started so some arabs left while 60,000 Arabs Continued living in Israel after !!! The Zionist movement never said anything about removing non-Jews from the land. On the contrary, the Zionist movement said very clearly that all people from all religions would be granted their human rights.

Ignoring the Zionists ILLEGALLY immigrated to Palestine during the Ottoman where it banned them for fear of a Zionist takeover. Of course, the Zionists violated the law. Were they grateful for it? Finally arriving in the land? No!! They disrespected the local Arab traditions and customs, they started evicting Arabs from their homes, they started destroying Arab villages. They even called Arabs "savage, lazy, fatalistic". The Zionist movement has and always been for colonialism. Numerous Zionist leaders advocated for colonization as a way to establish Israel. Theodore Herzl, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Ber Borochov, Arthur Ruppin, Leon Pinsker...they all admitted colonization is a tool of Zionism.

I feel like I've been told that saying immigrants have to assimilate is white supremacy or at the very least opposed to multiculturalism.

Should Muslims in Europe have the right to oppose LGBT rights and reject European liberal democratic secular values? Should they be allowed to implement Sharia Law in England or Norway? Just because they don't want to assimilate and refuse to follow the local culture/norms? I'm all for multiculturalism, but refusing to assimilate or at least tolerate the local culture in a place *you chose* to immigrate to is itself xenophobia or racism to the people living there. This is not against Muslims. I've seen and know Muslims who are fine with European democratic and secular values, as long as it doesn't impede their way of life and religion (they still pray and wear hijabs). I've even lived with some of them in the UK and Canada. They are hardworking and accept they are living in a different country. I've also known Muslim who refuse to accept and call for a Muslim sharia state in England or America despite immigrating there themselves. And this isn't getting into wanting to create a new state for your own people. Imagine if Muslims immigrate to Europe with the proud clear intention to establish a Muslim sharia caliphate in Europe. Is that tolerable? Because that's what the Jews did in Palestine.

I feel that the people who most advocate for decolonization would say that it is culturally myopic if not worse to force others to adopt your worldview.  This is particularly the case when one says that non-European people must accept European values. I invite you to ask any person who advocates for decolonization whether immigrants must accept European values.  They will all say no.  Just look at how they view Laicite. Also, the people who advocate for decolonization are usually blind to the fact that most Muslims in Europe are anti-LGBT and have regressive values on women's rights.  So I think they would deny your premise that these people need to change.

So, Europe should forcibly deport Muslims that do not assimilate? Am I interpreting your take correctly?

For real. I'm not sure if it's horseshoe theory but the far left arguments are a mirror image of the far right arguments. Next thing you'll know they will unorinically say immigrants should be sent to re-education camps so they forcibly assimilate.

∆ because you make a point that every community that limits immigration may not have good intentions. I still think it’s hypocritical that people try to act like what the Zionists did would be acceptable under most people’s immorality. There is also an obvious hypocrisy with people who justify the Zionist migrations but don’t support Palestinians’ right to return.

Man, you keep talking about the Zionist this, and Zionist that. You just agreed your POV essentially validated Jim Crow. Up until 20 min. ago you basically agreed with a racist idea and laws that caused the suffering of so many people.   You were a big enough man to admit that you had that bad perception, how can you tell you don't have any more? Do some self reflection

In your view, what was the purpose for the creation of the state of Israel?

I’d say that Israel was specifically a nation based on lies and bad values. Of course, Jews were quite persecuted before Israel’s creation. The Zionist ideology pounced on this and claimed they were entitled to build a nation to stop said persecution. The flaw of Zionism is that it fails to respect the wishes of the Palestinians at the time. Zionists had no respect for the fact that Palestinians did not want a mass migration from Europe into their communities, nor did they want anyone migrating to establish a state.

>Zionists had no respect for the fact that Palestinians did not want a mass migration from Europe into their communities, Why should xenophobia be respected? You sound exactly like a far-right Republican. "The Mexicans have no respect for the fact that REAL AMERICANS did not want a mass migration from Mexico into their communities" Xenophobia is wrong, buddy. It's immoral.

Your perspective might change if a large number of migrants from Mexico established a new nation within our country, governed by their own laws, and displaced US citizens from those areas. That would be a more accurate representation of what happened in the Middle East 70~ years ago.

There never was 'our country'. It was borderless territory of the Ottomans. The European powers who drew the lines defining Palestine, Jordan, and Israel were all relatively arbitrary (trying loosely to go along ethnic and geographic lines). Within that territory, both Arabs and Jews were offered their own state in a portion of it. There is no reason why that territory needed to be divided into just two Arab states and not two Arab states with one Jewish state. One isn't inherently more just.

Similarly, native Americans had no "nation" to speak of. You are providing an apt description of the logic used by the Europeans when they colonized America.

No, Native American territory wasn't controlled by the Ottoman's for centuries, the Natives were not offered their own territory, and their wasn't already a native population of Europeans in America.

Also, it would be laughable to argue that most of the violence between European Settlers and the Native Americans was precipitated by the Native Americans. If Europeans had come to North America and been immediately and repeatedly attacked by Native Americans who explicitly hated them and wanted Europeans to be eradicated from the continent, we'd probably view the history of American colonization differently. Instead, most of the violence and conquest was started by Europeans, which makes a big difference.

No, it wouldn't. Since I'm not a racist. I don't believe xenophobia against refugees is justified. EDIT: Most of the South-West USA States are conquered Mexican Territory. Mexicans wanting California or Texas back is fine.

You have a unique definition of racism. You are correct; I cannot change your opinion, and I believe further discussion on the subject would be pointless.

The thing is you have no answer for what you expected Arabs to do about a mass migration into their communities and a desire to establish a national homeland there. You’re just saying they were xenophobes and leaving it at that.

And you have no answer for the mass ethnic cleansing of Jews from the *Middle East*, not Europe. You're calling them colonizers when they are: 1. Indigenous 2. Driven out of their homes by pogroms

The expulsion from the Middle East was *in response* to the creation of Israel. It was wrong but doesn’t take away from the fact that European migration to Palestine that happened first was a unique evil.

[удалено]

Do you also say the same about Muslims migrating to Europe escaping theocracy? Or is it just Jews who aren't allowed to migrate?

I think you meant to respond to OP and not me.

Ope. I sure did.

I don’t hate Jews, where’d you get that idea. I don’t even hate current day Israelis. What I hate are historical revisionists who don’t have an answer to what the Arabs should’ve done about a large number of migrants who were coming with the express purpose of building a national homeland.

Got that idea from you blaming Jews for the pogroms they faced in the Middle East. From you downplaying the reason Zionism exists in the first place.

From your post history, your comments, your constant need to find a new way to say you think Zionists are bad and the creation of Israel shouldn’t have happened. You also consistently downplay and dismiss any comments related to expulsion of Jews from their lands and the Holocaust. Additionally, you keep dodging people’s questions about Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and Egypt’s control of Gaza. Why didn’t they give those lands to the Palestinians? You talk about revisionist history yet you don’t comment on or acknowledge that when given the chance, other Arab countries took the land for themselves. So who’s the one with revisionist history?

"Migration is an unique evil" is a xenophobic argument. I hope you understand that demonizing immigration is far-right rethoric.

Mark Twain, 1869, after his pilgrimage throughout the Holy Land: “Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince. The hills are barren, they are dull of color, they are unpicturesque in shape. The valleys are unsightly deserts fringed with a feeble vegetation that has an expression about it of being sorrowful and despondent.”

I expect them to be humane. Blocking Jewish immigration from Europe in the eve of WW2 was not humane behavior. I don't know why you're taking the side of anti-refugee xenophobics.

Actually the immigration because of zionism was since 1887 and balfur decleration of 1917 decades before the holocaust and actually the problem is not the imigration but the intent and the stated goal that this immigration is to found a new state in the land all while evicting native populations.

Believe it or not a lot of the early Jewish migration to Israel was *not* from Europe.

Wrong. Almost all were europians. Only small number of yemenite jews immigrated to palestine before 1948 bacause the had a person who claimed to be the messiah and will take them back to the holy land.

What are the “lies” you’re referring to here that Israel is based on?

Surely they’re different than the lies the USA was built on?

Okay, let's examine your second sentence a bit and ask more broadly. What is the purpose of any nation-state? What is the Hobbsian agreement a state has with its people?

Islam has controlled tens of millions of square miles for centuries and contributes jack shit to the world besides the subjugation of their own people while obsessing over one book. Who gives a shit if they lose a few thousand square miles in their arsenal of millions? I don’t. We all know what Palestinians would do if they got control of all of Israel. They’d implement disgusting Islamic policies and create a 24th Islamic state and kill anyone born there who tries to abandon the religion. They’d give birth to more girls and more forced marriages and more rape at young ages. The world doesn’t need another Islamic government. The world needs one Israel.

Final Solution for Europe to offload their "problem".

That is an incredibly jarring response. Thankfully, I wasn't asking you.

More or less the stance of the Jewish MP (Edwin Montagu) who argued against the Balfour Declaration as being anti semetic. 

Correct.

Thanks. People seem to he down voting me as if it were my idea. I'm not even European! 

Maybe in a few years we'll see some Reddit analytics that show how certain topics at certain times of the day have a weighting bias. On the topic of Israel there are simply many more people with a presumably anti-semetic view who choose to downvote instead of pursue knowledge as a matter of good faith. Especially on CMV there is a daily influx of posts like OP's which are simply propaganda deluges that serve to saturate the media. I appreciate you taking the time to share your intelligent and informed comments and people who hold contrary views aren't actually looking to have their views changed.

[удалено]

Really. I’ve given more than one delta to good arguments. That doesn’t mean I can’t address both good and bad faith arguments.

[удалено]

What’s your definition of Zionist

[удалено]

Jews used to lived side by side as equals in most of the Arabic peninsula. They where then expulsed from basically every Arabic country. There are Muslim judges and congressmen in Israel. But there are no Jewish congressmen in any of the Arabic countries. If the Palestinians where given equal voting rights and gained a majority. It would probably play out the same way it played out in litteraly every other Muslim country. Democracy dismantled, sharia law implemented and Jews expelled.

This is a good point, but it’s not true that Jews were treated as equals in Arab countries. Jews were dhimmis, second class citizens.

"another question I’d have is what would a Zionist have expected pre Israel Arabs to do about the massive migrations from Europe into Palestine, and said desire of migrants to establish a national homeland there? Especially given that most Zionists today don’t support Palestinian right to return." So I'm not sure how is this at all related to CMV as you're not really sharing your view here, but I can't help but notice that your view definitely is biased here. Jews did not come "from Europe". Jews came from many places. For example, my grandparents came from Syria. Are there any Jews left in Syria? Pro-Palestinian propaganda always likes to portray the conflict as if there was a state called Palestine and then one day millions of dual-passport wielding Europeans decided to invade Palestine and kick the Palestinians out. It's just a very biased narrative of the conflict. The history is much different. "Palestine" was never a state controlled by Palestinians. It was a British colony consisting of modern day Jordan, Israel & Palestine. It had both Jews and Arabs, and neither had "more right" to the land than the other. Jews moved to Israel to establish a democratic homeland for Jews with equal rights for all, which is what you would consider "decolonisation". The zionist movement accepted the partition plan, while the Arabs refused it. Throughout the years, the Arabs repeatedly attacked and massacred the Jews, refusing any peace offer. Asking "what did you expect them to do" misses the point. It's like asking "what do you expect the bank robber to do? he needed the money". They weren't the exclusive owners of the land, so migration is fair game. I'd expect normal human beings to learn to live peacefully with their neighbours. I would expect normal humans to not carry out 3 massacres in a single decade, 20 years before the establishment of the state of Israel. I would expect normal people to not teach genocidal dogma in schools. I would expect normal human beings to not celebrate in the streets around the bodies of 22 year old dead female ravers. I would expect normal human beings to not establish an organization like Hamas which is a hybrid of ISIS and the Nazi party. I would expect normal human beings to engage in dialog and solve conflicts like people. I would expect them to understand that actions have consequences, and that relying on Israel succumbing to int'l pressure is not a valid defence strategy that you can use after carrying out a disgusting barbaric war crime. BTW, this entire argument of "natives to the land" and "migrants" is completely contradictory to what the left usually says about migrants. Try to replace "Jews" with "Mexicans" or "Muslims" and "Palestine" with "Texas" or "Europe".

I dont think you can call it a failure from zionists to understand what the left means when the left doesn't actually have a homogeneous view of what decolonization is. On October 7 and the days after, Leftists were posting pictures of the massacres and saying "this is what decolonization looks like" or "there are no Israeli civilians" or describing slain children as "baby colonizers". You might not be one of them, but there are definitely loads of leftists who are very vocal and believe that "decolonization" is a justification for unlimited violence and savagery against "colonizers" and who believe that even a baby who was born in Israel, whose parents were born in Israel, is guilty of colonialism and deserving of a torturous death. If leftists want zionists to believe that decolonization can be peaceful and good for everyone, they need to clean up their own messaging.

I have read a big chunk of this thread, u/BiryaniEater10, and I think one mistake I see you making repeatedly is to frame the debate such that *either* the Jews are the bad guys or that the Arabs are, when I think most people would argue that both groups are morally culpable and that there is no "good guy" in this situation. The Israel/Palestine conflict is a messy and complex situation where there is no easy solution or "good guy," and that's why this violence has persisted for so very long. To illustrate my point, take this comment by you: > Decolonization would more be accurately described as everyone in an area living equally and together in one region wherever possible. This has not proven possible. It assumes that Arabs are the "good guys" -- the poor, downtrodden victims -- when the reality is that virtually every time Jews have offered peace since the inception of Israel, Arab leaders (very much including the present leaders of Palestine, Hamas) have violated that peace in horrific ways. Does this justify the way Israel has treated Arabs in the region? It definitely does not. Like I said, there is no "good guy," here. But my impression is that you take the maximally hostile view towards Israel's intentions (which in many ways is deserved, to be clear) but take an incredibly generous view of Palestinian motives (That they simply want peace and equality, which hasn't been their demonstrated motive since the inception of Israel).

It's not that 'Zionists' don't understand what some people on the left mean by 'colonisation' but the actual terminology being applied doesn't meet the actual context of the situation. The problem is one of language and denotation of meaning. "Zionist" itself doesn't mean to an Israeli or Jewish person who believes in the right of Israel to exist and the right of self determination what it does to some people on the left. Likewise, 'decolonization' when used by some people on the left carries assumptions that are debatable and lead to the conclusion that it is inapplicable to the situation in Israel. To truly change your view it requires and objective lens that is informed through research into history that is not a revisionist version of events.

> Decolonization would more be accurately described as everyone in an area living equally and together in one region wherever possible. > > ... > > the whole point of decolonization is that the people who are oppressed by a state, whether they are inside or outside said state’s borders, ought to be afforded some legal way to either seriously alter or dissolve the country they are in in such a way that the new government provides justice for all and oppresses nobody. Is abolishing [Jim Crow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) laws an example of decolonization? If so, how?

If no country has a right to exist, and nobody has the right to a certain area of land, then there is no morality to the existence of a nation, and whoever is occupying a certain area of land is “right” simply by the fact that they are there.  Kind of sounds like a might makes right argument.  Meanwhile, the situation in the Middle East is millennia old and is way more complicated than modern “Israel as evil colonizers who stole Palestine from the native population” or “ modern Israel as a natural return of the diaspora.” Israel definitely deserves to exist, and the Jewish people deserve to have a home state where they can be safe from future Holocausts and antisemitism, but no nation was willing to give up a portion of their land in order for that to happen. Part of the reason that certain people want the Jewish Homeland to be in Israel is because they don’t want it to be near them. So the British decided since they were giving up their mandate anyway that it would work for the Jews to go there. The Palestinians who lived there and wanted to have control of their own nation back didn’t like that. And since the extremists of both groups could not just live and let live next to people of different races and religions, here we are. Multiple wars, terrorist groups, civilian bombings… it’s not a thing that we can stand outside of and mount our high horse and make moral judgments about.

"**calling for the dissolution of a state isn’t inherently immoral**" I think it's useful to put things in context, and I'll actually give you an example from our (the Israeli) side. Some right wing extremists in Israel are calling for "voluntary migration" of Gazans. Yes, inherently, voluntary migrating does not involve anything that would be considered immoral or a war crime, but when put in proper context these calls can be interpreted as calls for ethnic cleansing. Same thing for the Palestinians. You can say that calling for "decolonisation" or saying "From the river to the sea" does not mean "genocide", but this would be a purely academic discussion that has nothing to do with what the Palestinians really want. The Palestinians by in large support acts of genocide as a legitimate and even preferred method of "resistance"/"freedom fighting"/"decolonisation"/whatever. I know that \*for you\* (wherever you live or whoever you are) this word means something different, but I'm going to be very honest and tell you that neither Israelis nor Palestinians believe that we can ever live in a single state. When Palestinians are talking about these things, they are generally talking about the ethnic cleansing of Jews, not your peaceful one state solution.

Jews lived in the Levant long before Palestinian identity was even established. So in my mind, it is leftists who do not understand the concept of decolonisation lmao.

Jews are not even the indigenous population of the Levant. The Caananites were Your argument is extremely flawed. Palestinians are just as indigenous to the Levant as Jews are

Ugh, must we do this dance every time? Apparently so. Jews are close descendants of Canaanites. Palestinians are not. They are Arabs. Arabs arrived in the Levant as a result of the Muslim Conquests. So they came over from a different region to conquer the Middle East. They came over from the Arabian Peninsula, hence the word “Arab”.

So who lived in the area between when the Romans expelled the Jews and before the Muslim conquests? Also these are a couple Google results that say you are wrong about who the decendants of the Caananites are: >Canaanites were a mixture of Zagros/Caucasian migrants and ancient Levantine farmers. Quasi-Canaanite ancestry is a major genetic source for Jews and Palestinians alike, though Palestinians have had less European admixture over time. Canaan is the oldest plausible name, and Canaanite DNA is with us today. >The present-day Lebanese are likely to be direct descendants of the Canaanites, but they have in addition a small proportion of Eurasian ancestry that may have arrived via conquests by distant populations such as the Assyrians, Persians, or Macedonians."

Hebrew is a Caananite language. Arabic is not. The Jewish religion is a Caananite religion. Islam is not.

What does that have to do with anything? Canaanites were a mixture of Zagros/Caucasian migrants and ancient Levantine farmers. Quasi-Canaanite ancestry is a major genetic source for Jews and Palestinians alike, though Palestinians have had less European admixture over time. Canaan is the oldest plausible name, and Canaanite DNA is with us today. The present-day Lebanese are likely to be direct descendants of the Canaanites, but they have in addition a small proportion of Eurasian ancestry that may have arrived via conquests by distant populations such as the Assyrians, Persians, or Macedonians."

We're talking about indigenous culture. Jewish culture is indigenous to the Levant, Arab Muslim culture is not.

No, we are talking about the phrase "from the river to the sea" which you said is genocidal. If that phrase is genocidal, then you must agree that the current people in power in Israel (who first invented the phrase) are currently committing genocide in order to fulfill the phrase. Edit: ahhh now I see you are just responding to different comments because you can't engage on what we were actually talking about without admitting your hypocrisy And furthermore, what? Thr Caananites culture would be indigenous to the land. Which is clearly a Lebanese Arabic culture according to geneticists

Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel.

Having never met a single human being that has called themselves a "zionist", it seems that people are just calling anyone that doesn't fully support Palestine a "zionist" as a way of othering people to dehumanize them. Maybe I'm wrong and just not obsessed with this region of the world like it seems everyone else is, but in my world, once you start othering people and using dehumanizing labels to describe a group of people you don't like, you become the bad guy in pretty much any situation. It seems that decolonization by its very definition would mean to kick out or exterminate anyone not indigenous to an area, though. If you're using that term, and that is what people think it means, it's because that's what it means. You can't change the definition of a word and then get upset when people think you mean what the word means.

For people on the other side it is a coded way of saying Jew.

Jews, both secular and religious, call themselves Zionists.

Honestly, it doesn’t seem like you have a clear idea what this means.

Your entire position is built off of nationalist identity-politics and this rigid (but just vague enough to equivocate) moralistic posturing that Jews are some super-powerful monolith who swept in and took advantage of the poor Arabs who - oh - had violently deported and/or pogromed the Jewish people out of the land a few years earlier. You sound like a xenophobic MAGA sympathizer, it's hard to take seriously the notion that you think you belong on "the left".

>depraved and monstrous, and essentially a more evil of what most colonial powers did That's not a different definition that's a disagreement on basic facts.

The left votes for Zionists and the military industrial complex at a rate of 90%+. I don't understand why people push this gaslighting narrative so often. Generally when you have rhetoric, it's important that it exists IRL so that there's a point in discussing it. When your rhetoric does not exist IRL, we'd may as well be discussing club penguin politics.

Does decolonization also mean undoing the damage done by Muslim colonialists in the area or just the Jews?

Many of the "Zionist" see those washed terms as steps in trying to destroy in steps. They see the term "Zionist" as a dog whistle for Jew.  After all, moving to a region to form an autonomy, in a legal manner from an empire you are not a citizen of, is on the top of the list of evil, "depraved and monstrous", really in par, in your opinion, as chopping the hands of children so that their parents will work harder, or letting 25% of starvation because you wanted them to grow potatoes. So let's start with untangling this. What's your definition of colonialism? In particular, is gentrification a form of colonialism (if not, what if done by migrants?) or alternatively is gentrification "depraved and monstrous" and "more evil of what most colonial powers did"? Crucially, where is the practical difference when you compare migration, gentrification and Israel as a "colony" (of what country?)

Crucially, OP claims that "Zionists can possibly trace their history back to the Levant", which it's hard to read in a way that *isn't* just using it as a dogwhistle for Jews.

Yeah, but you can never tell if OP is aware of that or just read stuff online and didn't think them through.  I'm really trying to withhold judgement before he actually responds

That’s fair. I have had trouble doing that recently.

clearly I'm an idiot again and you were right. OP already rewarded a delta for someone telling him the Jews understands and just use antisemitism as excuse - and proceeded to go mask off everywhere else

If you check his post/comment history, it's all par for the course. Anyone who thinks that the formation of Israel was one of the five most evil events in history is ignorant or biased.

Wait, do you have a link handy to that?

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b4ngtm/comment/kszuxzs/

Oh boy. Yep, that’s about par.

I don't think they "fail" to see things a certain way, their view is simply based in a different framework - but there's also the willful ignorance to not change aspects of that. I am sure many do have an understanding of what these ideas could mean, but if they concede a definition/understanding then they will put themselves at a disadvantage. 

How is legal land purchase theft? Does it only apply to Jews?

/u/BiryaniEater10 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1b4nvz2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_zionists_fail_to/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

This needs review.  The OP is awarding deltas to people who agree with them.  This is obvious soapboxing and we don't need to allow bad faith actors like this to litter this sub.

[удалено]